Hate crimes

Two People Charged With a Hate Crime for Painting Over a Black Lives Matter Mural

Seeking maximal punishment for a nonviolent offense will not help the Black Lives Matter movement.


A man and a woman who attempted to paint over a city-approved Black Lives Matter mural in Martinez, California, on Saturday are both facing hate crime charges.

The Contra Costa County District Attorney's Office charged Nicole Anderson and David Nelson with three misdemeanors: violation of civil rights, vandalism under $400, and possession of tools to commit vandalism or graffiti. If convicted, they each face up to a year in county jail.

In a viral video captured Saturday, Anderson is seen spattering black paint and using a roller to cover up a yellow Black Lives Matter sign that had been painted on the road facing the Martinez courthouse after the city issued a permit for the project. Nelson filmed.

"We're sick of this narrative, that's what's wrong," he says in the clip. "The narrative of police brutality, the narrative of oppression, the narrative of racism, it's a lie."

Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton justified her decision to bring charges against the pair in a statement released this week. "We must address the root and byproduct of systemic racism in our country. The Black Lives Matter movement is an important civil rights cause that deserves all of our attention. The mural completed last weekend was a peaceful and powerful way to communicate the importance of Black lives in Contra Costa County and the country. We must continue to elevate discussions and actually listen to one another in an effort to heal our community and country."

But central to the Black Lives Matter movement, according to their official statement of purpose, is the notion that many of the injustices they seek to rectify are especially egregious when they come from the state. The death of George Floyd has elevated the police reform debate, though that conversation has primarily centered around how difficult it is to hold rogue cops accountable. More, still, should be devoted to bad laws and regulations and the excessive penalties that are tied up in breaking those rules.

A cause that surrounds dismantling the carceral state—the U.S. government locks up its people at the highest rate by far—can not apply that ideology discriminately. Putting the vandals in a cage for a year over a nonviolent attempt to spread some paint won't change their hearts and minds. And though it might change the police reform movement, it won't be for the better.

Also of note is the district attorney's decision to pursue hate crime charges for the paint-related incident, which carry enhanced penalties. That charge—violation of civil rights under California's penal code 422—says that no person "shall knowingly deface, damage, or destroy the real or personal property of any other person" on the basis of protected class, including disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, sexual orientation, and/or the association with a person who has one or more of those characteristics. Of note is that the property defaced here is not personal but is owned by the government—an important caveat when considering the road did not belong to the mural's artists.

But at a broader level, there are plenty of reasons to take issue with pursuing hate crime charges. It sometimes means that people are charged twice for the same crimes. More important to this particular discussion is that it gives the government power to arbitrarily draw distinctions between hate-based infringements and those of a more agnostic variety, which chips away at the equality we're all supposedly entitled to under law, the same equality BLM says it's fighting for.

When considering the anti-carceral motivations behind the Black Lives Matter movement, the contradictions here are on full display. Seeking maximal state-imposed retribution for a nonviolent offense does nothing to help black people who no longer want to be the victims of maximal state-imposed retribution for nonviolent offenses.

The mural has since been repainted.

NEXT: Even In Defeat, Bernie Sanders Is Pulling Joe Biden to the Left

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. No mention of the fact that this was a political statement by the supposed vandals against another political movement and therefore the decision to prosecute obviously demonstrates that the state is supporting one political movement over another? Pretty sure that is a blatant violation of the 1A. Wonder how the USSC will decide this? Do I even need to ask if the ACLU will actually defend the vandals free speech rights? Naw, didn’t think so.

    1. Wonder how the USSC will decide this?

      “Fuck Whitey” – John Roberts

      1. This is a perfect illustration of the Lifecycle of the Conservative Savior.
        Step 1: spend your youth conforming yourself into a mold under the kind direction of Leo^2.
        Step 2: grunt work: get a judgeship or whatever, work it for a while. While doing so, cultivate a reputation for legal work in some conservative hot-button area.
        Step 3: wait for your Moment. If you’re lucky, you get to
        Step 4: Scotus! Celebrate, you’re going to make it all better.
        Step 5: Even you can’t stomach what some convervative goals would do to the country, fail the yappers, and fall from grace.

        Hey, at least you get a pretty sweet lifetime gig to enjoy in ignominy.

        1. Yes because the same can’t be applied to progressives. It is always the conservatives fault.

          1. “Fault?” What exactly am I blaming you for that has you immediately reaching for your +1 charm of Both-Sides-Do-It?

            Just pointing out a cycle that has been repeating since your team got the vapors over Bork.

            1. My side? Also, the left doesn’t at all treat RBG as some sort of savior, do they?

              1. Remember all the progs promising her their organs a few years ago.

                1. Fuck I forgot about that. Ok I’m a retard.

                  1. Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I am now making over $15k every month just by doing an easy j0b 0nline!SZa I KNOW YOU NOW MAKIG MOR DOLLARS online from $28 k I,TS EASY ONLINE WORKING JOBS…

                    go to this SITE for more INFO just copy and paste……Home Profit System

                  2. Well at least you realize it ….. maybe you have a smidgen of hope.

                2. I endorse that plan. I’ve always favored some form of organ harvesting scheme where progressives are concerned.

      2. State terrorism from Democratic Party street militias – that’s fine.
        Painting over government racist propaganda – throw the book at them!

        Zimbabwe, here we come.

        1. The progressives may make it necessary to relocate them to landfills if they continue as they have.

          1. You will continue to comply with the preferences of your betters until you are replaced.

            You are welcome to whimper impotently and mutter bitterly about it all you want, though, clinger.

            1. OK, Snowflake.

        2. Yeah it`s Possible…Anybody can earn 250$+ daily… You can earn from 6000-12000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good eaning opportunity..Click For Full Details.

    2. No mention of the fact that this was a political statement by the supposed vandals against another political movement

      I don’t think political vandalism should be considered a protected thing. Whether it’s painting over a BLM mural on a street or knocking down statues of the unpersoned.

      1. Maybe, but it was hardly a “hate crime”.

      2. Hate Crime laws (and Civil Rights laws) are all blatantly unconstitutional.

        “If you believe in equal rights, then what do “women’s rights,” “gay rights,” etc., mean? Either they are redundant or they are violations of the principle of equal rights for all.” – Thomas Sowell

        1. Apparently Sowell’s common sense concept is too complicated for a progressive’s brain.

      3. A government agency allowing public resources to advertise a political movement was wrong too – just as it would have been wrong to have MAGA 2020 painted on the street.

      4. Political vandalism would be a bunch of outsiders coming in and painting the BLM sign in the first place

        1. On the one hand, at least the people who painted the street mural originally went through the process and got a permit and were authorized to do that work. So, it’s not vandalism in that regard.

          On the other hand, the city should not have issued that permit, and the officials who made that decision should be fired or voted out.

          1. Would they have allowed a conservative slogan to be painted on a street, as well? I think not.

      5. I don’t think political vandalism should be considered a protected thing.

        Perhaps not. But if we’ve already accepted much worse vandalism by allowing statues to be pulled down and mass scale graffiti on what basis do you enforce small scale vandalism of painting over BLM graffiti? If the former is free speech so is the latter.

        We all know this is how government allies support their shock troops. It’s corruption plain and simple.

        I think it’s revealing to compare this tactic to the KKK. In the Jim Crow era (and for a transition period after) whites could publicly humiliate blacks because both parties knew the law would be enforced only to protect whites. So whites could seem powerful because any reaction would bring swift retaliation from the local sheriff not just on any black standing up for himself him but on his family as well. This was a particularly hateful tactic described in many compelling memoirs.

        Compare that to this guy:


        What gives this person the understanding he can blow an air horn in people’s faces without fear of retaliation?

        Tha answer is: Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton and thousands of others just like her all across America. They are today’s version of the backwoods Alabama sheriff in 1948 who enforces the law to support race driven political interests. I wonder if todays leftists are consciously adopting KKK tactics or if it’s just useful tool Democrats have found at the bottom of their toolbox without remembering its ugly history.

    3. It’s a stretch to call painting over non-traffic markings on a street a hate crime. It was a safety issue because only traffic markings should be on a roadway. Of course the permits that allowed BLM to put a political statement on the street was against public policy and probably not a legal permit. I hope the defense lawyers should address that problem. Political statements are traditionally made with sign. The city permitting people have set a precedent and must now allow any & all political parties to deface public roadways.

      1. And more conservative casuistry.

        1. The argument all people are equal and have the same rights goes against everything the left believes. The so-called progressives treat politics as their religion. Their holy mission is to use the coercive power of the state to remake man and society in their own image, according to an abstract ideal of perfection. Whatever means they use are therefore justified because, by definition, they are a virtuous people pursuing a deific end. What they say and decide is virtuous simply because they said it.

    4. That’s some impressive armchair First Amendment lawyering casuistry there, soldier.

      1. Everyone involved in this is an asshole, but it seems pretty clear that it’s a violation of the 1A. I’ll enjoy watching twist into a knot proving it isn’t though.

        1. The only charge that will really stick will be vandalism. The “hate crime” is dead, for the reason stated in the article: the street is public property, not the property of a person or organization that is targeted because of being part of a protected class. The question that could be raised is whether or not it is constitutional for a government to grant permission to decorate its property with partisan political slogans.

          1. It won’t matter much though will it? These people’s lives will be ruined by the time the charge is dropped, which is exactly the point the apparatchik is making.

      2. How so? If the city allowed BLM to use public property they can’t bar anyone else from doing the same. That violates both the 1st and 14th amendment.

        1. Yes. but “doing the same” means “getting permission to paint a message on roadways”, not “deface another political message”.

          1. So then the charge should be failing to obtain a permit, not vandalism, correct?

            1. Both.

              1. I cleaned the message f*ck the USA off the public sidewalk. I knew it was a leftist political message so now I am waiting for the swat team to break down my door and take me to the slammer in chains. It is only right I face my punishment for disagreeing.

            2. Painting over someone else’s permitted message is vandalism no matter what.

              They could presumably get a permit to paint their own message somewhere else.

      3. I see you learned a new word today from your thesaurus. Don’t wear it out.

    5. ” Pretty sure that is a blatant violation of the 1A. ”

      Is that legal analysis a Liberty law degree talking, something you remember from a discount homeschooling outline, or what you learned at Stormfront this morning?

      1. If free speech doesn’t apply to political speech what does it apply to fuck head? Yeah anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint must be members of stormfronts. God you are juvenile.

      2. Is that a tacit admission that you don’t understand the question or that you have keystrokes to log for your handlers, so…. sumpin?

      3. or what you learned at Stormfront this morning?

        The only member of the “Stormfront” here is you, Kirkland. So you tell us: what did your progressive/fascist friends discuss this morning?

    6. Here’s the long and short of it: It’s obvious the prosecutor is a worthless, scum-sucking. far-left-leaning, liberal retard Democrat who is going to pacify and placate the black community regardless of how wrong-headed this approach is. When you understand that Democrats are the ones pulling the strings on all this stupidity, this will all make sense. This is just another way to say “Screw the whites! They’re all racists and now that we blacks have the upper hand, we’re going to take maximum advantage and exact some long-awaited, long-anticipated payback! This is all about screwing the white conservative and fair application and due process of law be hanged.

    7. Important to note that the first “political movement” acquired a permit to paint its message onto city-owned property, but the “supposed vandals” acquired no such permit to alter that which had been painted on city property.

    8. This article discusses one possible interpretation, what the Founders had intended. Another interpretation, advanced by people like #BlackLivesMatter and acceded to by many Democrats, is that the situation calls for a revolutionary overthrow of American justice. Epitomized by emptying the prisons of blacks put in there for various crimes of various seriousness, AND refilling those prisons with whites whose ancestry or themselves have committed crimes against the new antifa anti-racist order.

      To be seen whether this couple gets the max. The people advocating for charges may want to see the charges elevated to a felony, so that this couple forever has a serious criminal record, with all the burden that implies, and lose their right to vote (temporarily) and their 2A right to possess a firearm.

  2. Tearing down statues on public property is still cool, right?

    1. In multiple cities they are investigating and arresting people who tear down statues. I’m sure this is in the same category, destruction of property. The former cases might have vastly more public support than this one, but they are both still pretty likely to be illegal.

      1. I’ll bet they hated those statues, or at least they hated what they represented to them. Regardless these crimes were filled with hate with a side of hate.

        1. (FFWD 5 years)..

          What statues? There are no such statues that point to a civil war, fought against slavery, and brought about by Democrat slave holders. What is this “slavery” you’re referring to? If it existed, it has been erased of monuments and place holders to remind the public of such deeds.

          1. They will *never* give up the guilt cudgel of slavery. Hell, they’re now insinuating that the U.S. is the reason slavery ever existed in the first place. There are college students who actually think slavery was invented in America.

          2. I’m of the opinion that they keep using racism and slavery as a cudgel against the confederacy because they want to bury any and all other issues that may have been a concern at the time.

            Slavery in America is dated as an issue. No one in this country thinks it was ok or wants to bring it back.

            The only issue that is gaining relevance is subsidiarity and state’s rights and free association. And tearing down the history of the war, especially the history of VA, buries the issue under the weight of a dead cause.

            1. “Slavery in America is dated as an issue. No one in this country thinks it was ok or wants to bring it back.”

              The Dems changed from wanting to enslave black people, to wanting to enslave the richest 1%, and by 1%, I mean the richest 49%.

              Also, I flagged your post by mistake because I suck. Wish I could undo that.

      2. Painting over the paint damaged the street? Let me think about that for a minute.

      3. The reality though is that there was no property destroyed. Anyone who makes that claim must therefore make the case that the city owned the artwork when no such claim has been made. In fact it could more likely be argued that city property was restored in much the same way as a private party might clean up the confetti after a licensed parade. The fact that someone else wants it to stay as a permanent thing is as irrelevant and makes it no more legal than it is for the government to make make thoughts a crime.

        The government problem with this prosecution is that they simply don’t have a Constitutionally chargeable offense. That doesn’t mean that a judge won’t honor the politics of it though.

    2. Tearing down statues has always been cool. Statues are usually symbols of oppression.

      1. Not the one of Lenin in Seattle.

        1. That’s on private property!

          So, I’m sure the left would be totes cool with a statue of Robert E. Lee as long as it was on private property too. Right?

          1. Since they don’t really believe in private property, no.

      2. Eunuch’s greatest goal in life is to have the leftists pat him on the head and tell him “good boy” immediately before they finally end his misery with a bullet

      3. Have you ever once, ever, in your entire fucking life said anything that wasn’t absolutely fucking retarded? It’s unbelievable that your mother, as a 37 IQ victim of Down’s Syndrome, managed to find somebody of even slightly lower intelligence to fuck her to produce you.

        1. Paul, that was beautiful. I may have to steal that!!

        2. Insulting people with Down’s Syndrome is super cool. Fuck you.

      4. Definitely the one of Martin Luther King Jr has to go, right?

        1. Well, he did advocate color-blindness, which I’m told is racist, so. . . .

          1. Hi S=C! Long time no see.

            1. Hi Pedo Jeffy! Taking some time to regale us with more retarded sophistry?

        2. I thought it was Mao Luther King they put up?

      5. That must be why they tore down Frederick Douglass. He was an oppressor of white people. MLK is next?

    3. Yeaj, that’s a love crime.

    4. “Tearing down statues on public property is still cool, right?”

      The pop-up ad vids have a headline that Trump’s rallies caused the spike in the wu-flu cases. Not a word about the protests or riots.

      1. Man, your blood pressure must be through the roof with all these things you worry about.

        1. Which part of his statement indicated ’worry’?

          1. Dude is counting and keeping score on the number of anti-Trump vs. anti-liberal pop-up ads he is seeing on some online video.

            Why would someone who habituated a libertarians website, presumably a libertarian then, get worked up over either conservatives or liberals being knocked by some online ads, or worry about whether the knocking is perfecty balances?

            1. You created your entire persona to whine about people criticizing Reason and being insufficiently woke

          2. Oh, wait, I can answer my own question. Because Sevo isn’t a libertarian. He’s a pro-Trump conservative shill who hangs out at a libertarian website to troll and shill for Trump.

    5. Not without arson and public beatings of the inherently evil race!

  3. violation of civil rights

    Of what? The asphalt?

    1. Blacktop Lives Matter

    2. How funny you must pretend the people being charged don;t exist for your point to make sense.

      Nice job!

      1. Hey, can you put that in sentence form and specify which people you are referring to? Random words can be fun but if you don’t understand the comment to which you are replying or form a cohesive thought, then it’s just space on some server somewhere.

  4. They could have been charged with a hilarity crime if they had just painted over the L only.

    1. B ack ives Matter?

      1. The thing spelled out the whole word and not just the acronym? Now that’s a hate crime against the environment.

        Also, seems like it would have taken forever to paint over.

    2. “Mural”

      according to dictionary.com, a mural is ‘a large picture painted or affixed directly on a wall or ceiling.’

      Large ✔
      Picture ✖
      Wall or ceiling ✖

      1. Damn not meant as a reply

        1. Doesn’t matter; these are Reason comments – – – – – –

      2. In Maryland they painted a huge “mural” on the ground of Breonna Taylor. That’s a nice thing to do for someone two states away. I’m sure none of those Maryland people have every heard of Duncan Lemp.

        Maybe it’s because when you bring up his name you’re accused of being a white supremacist.

        1. Crime by association, yet another bullshit method of delegitimizing your opponents. I’ve never heard of the “boogaloo boys”. I’m sure there are lots of pissed off people who would like to see the government get it’s due, in lead.

          We should all grieve for Lemp, a man whose only crime was exercising a constitutional right. That a noxious group of people lionize his death does not make it any less awful.

          1. The media has been trying to tie them to libertarians for a couple months now.

            1. Boog bois *ARE* libertarians. We are not alt right. We are not rayciss. The alt right has been trying to co-opt boog bois for weeks now.

              Hell, one of the boogaloo side quests is to neutralize white supremes trying to infiltrate your squad.

        2. Both Breonna Taylor and Lemp are pristine examples of major police problems in this country. George Floyd is As soon as BLM got involved in this, I knew any chance of change or justice were doomed.

          1. *George Floyd’s situation has too many complicating elements to unify the public-at-large behind the cause of police reform, and it almost seems like that’s the point.

            1. George Floyd’s situation has too many complicating elements to unify the public-at-large behind the cause of police reform, and it almost seems like that’s the point.

              Aye. When it’s politics, it’s of no use if you can’t use it to divide people, or in the lingo of the industry, to make it a “wedge issue.”

              When cops kill clearly innocent people, no one is going to fight over that. When cops kill people in ambiguous situations, all you have to do is pretend the situation is unambiguous and presto – you have a Righteous Struggle Against Evil when people naively point out that the situation is not unambiguous.

            2. Yes, it’s important that they light the fire before all the facts are known. There might have been a substantial upset over Floyd in the end, but far less if his criminal history and drug issues had been known from the start. However, once the ball is rolling, it seems nothing stands in the way of a sufficiently emotional narrative where everyone had already invested themselves.

              Same shit with Michael Brown 6 years ago. By the time the facts had come out, they had already labeled him as the gentle giant. Of course slightly different situation, but the same tactics with Trayvon Martin. Despite being 25 yrs old, they were publishing his 12 year old pics, saying he got shot for buying Skittles, and had labeled George Zimmerman, a Hispanic guy, as a white Jew racist because of his last name.

              When you want a specific narrative, you gotta get it out there early and keep pushing it regardless of the facts. Few people actually end up living up to the tidy narrative that is concocted to enrage the peons.

          2. Of course, this has never been about police reform.

        3. Or Daniel Shaver. Same thing.

          1. Except that Shaver was just a guy, and not a 3%er or anything that I’m aware of. But pointing out his death is deemed uncool because it doesn’t fit the narrative.

    3. There is nothing funny about BLM.

    4. Better if they painted out the V.

      1. The spacing would be all wrong.

  5. how dafuq is paint a hate crime?

    1. The state defines what is a crime depending on the need to suppress a given group.

      Would the arrests suggest that white privilege is over?

      1. But you still nailed the point, ha ha.

      2. No!

        Every time you catch a witch only proves there are so many more witches out there!

    2. Try mixing Pthalo blue with cadmium red light. You’ll understand.

      1. +1 rods and cones

  6. The Black Lives Matter movement is an important civil rights cause that deserves all of our attention.

    From the BLM website:

    We acknowledge, respect, and celebrate differences and commonalities. HAAAAHAHAHAHA!!!!! (OK, that last part was me)

    We are unapologetically Black in our positioning.

    We are guided by the fact that all Black lives matter, regardless of actual or perceived sexual identity, gender identity, gender expression, economic status, ability, disability, religious beliefs or disbeliefs, immigration status, or location. (no mention of political affiliation?)

    We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.

    We practice empathy. We engage comrades with the intent to learn about and connect with their contexts. (emphasis mine)

    We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.

    We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

    We embody and practice justice, liberation, and peace in our engagements with one another. (As evidenced by holding a Dresden look-alike contest with our major cities).

    1. I assume they passed this around to each and every protester to make sure they were all in complete agreement about this before speaking for several million people that consider themselves part of the movement, right?

      I guess it’s like scientology or a complete restructuring of the US healthcare system. You have to sign on completely in complete totality first and only then do you get to find out what you’ve signed up for.

      1. If you march under the banner of an organization, it’s your responsibility to know what it stands for.

        Anyway, BLM has been clear about their Marxist agenda from the start, and they talk about it at all their rallies.

    2. It really is just collectivism. You are either with us, or you are against us.

      “Libertarian moment.” Grow some fucking balls, Reason.

    3. The thing is, the name of their organization is a blatant lie, and even Don Lemon unwittingly admitted it a few days ago. They don’t give a shit about Black Lives, they only give a damn about Black Deaths if that person was killed by whitey, preferably a cop.

    4. This is the problem. The statement “black lives matter ” isn’t particularly controversial But local governments have made it clear that they are endorsing an organization of the same name. As noted the organization is stridently racist, socialist and collectivist. It is an unabashedly political organization. You can agree or disagree with the statements made by the defendants here but they didn’t express any animosity towards any race. Their objections are to the pollitical narrative endorsed by their own city government.

    5. They could just condense this to…

      “black lives matter. Except to black men who routinely abuse black trans people and abandon their children 75% of the time. So we came up with these guidelines to be less homo/transphobic and to raise our children as a village because we, and our black men, are too stupid to assign and accept responsibility, respectively.”

      On the homophobic part…remember in the 08 election…prop 8 was on the ballot in California. Exit polling show 91% of black Californians voted for Obama, and 98% of black Californians voted against prop 8. The supermajority of blacks against prop 8 was enough to overcome the white vote in favor (roughly 60 yes, 40 no). And the fact that black people railroaded prop 8 is probably why all the California Karen’s came out 2 years later and overruled the referendum and made prop 8 law without voter consent.

      1. And the Californians blamed the Mormons, not the blacks, for defeating it.

    6. Yeah, that damned Western (code word: White) family structure sure gets in the way of a homie shacking up with as many ho’s as possible and skating on any father responsibilities.

    7. BLM founder Patrisse Cullors in 2015 video: “We actually do have an ideological frame. Myself and Alicia in particular, we’re trained organizers. We are trained Marxists. We are super versed on ideological theories…”

  7. So can conservatives get a permit for say an anti-abortion sign in the road or on the side of a bus? Can’t wait for them to try, get shot down and sue for their civil rights being violated.

    1. No, because that would be a hate crime. It’s sexist to oppose abortion, even if you are a biological woman.

    2. Can’t wait for them to try, get shot down and sue for their civil rights being violated.

      And then get told by the courts that they can go get fucked. Then appeal. Then get told by the courts that they can go get fucked. Then appeal to the supreme court. Then get told by John Roberts that they can go get fucked.

      1. It’s long past time to get rid of the progs.

  8. Seeking maximal punishment for a nonviolent offense will not help the Black Lives Matter movement.”

    Because the important thing here is whether this prosecution helps the BLM movement or not. Not that the cops there have pretty much turned a blind eye to vandalism, theft, assault, and arson, but this crime in particular is the one that got them off their asses to investigate.

    What the fuck, Binion?

    1. To reiterate something I said a few weeks back, this is why I’m truly scared for the first time in my life. The fact that this unbelievably racist and violent movement is getting material support from all levels of the state and media.

      I thought that Peter Hitches was being hyperbolic when he said a few years ago that Western Society was degrading to such a life (Britain in particular) that he felt he was in a race to die before someone broke into his home and beat him to death for whatever was in his wallet.

      I now see it. We’ve got violent mobs attacking people and when those people dare to even brandish a weapon in their own defense, they’re swiftly prosecuted by the state and excoriated in the media.

      We have to start pushing back on this shit now. NOW!

      1. The war is over. The bill is being paid.

        1. You’re not wrong. I think the best description I’ve heard in regards to the state of Western Society and our lack of ability to defend its values is the result of a “Kierkegaardian” revolution. Also sometimes referred to as “the long march” on our institutions.

            1. Ironically, it will be this behavior by leftists that may actually push conservatives towards a fascist model. Conservatives might decide to fight crazy with more crazy.”

              That’s a depressing take, but it’s getting more likely at this point. The modern left, thanks to the Participation Trophy generation getting indoctrinated with hyper-anti-white animus for decades, has developed a complete sense of entitlement in regards to politics over the last 20 years. They literally believe that they’re never supposed to lose, and they never stop until they’ve gotten their way. Any public dissent is met with the targeting of people for the loss of their livelihood, and any efforts to be left the fuck alone by this claque of screeching baboons are being met with criminal charges. Ted Kaczinsky was right about these people.

              1. Ironically, it will be this behavior by leftists that may actually push conservatives towards a fascist model. Conservatives might decide to fight crazy with more crazy.”

                That’s a depressing take, but it’s getting more likely at this point.

                Conservatives may well react to the left with authoritarianism, but not with fascism. Fascism is an ideology of the left and diametrically opposed to conservative ideology; fascism is youth-oriented, progressive, anti-religion, anti-business, collectivist.

            2. Oh my good heavens. That place is a sewage pit of conspiracy-addled nonsense. No wonder you have turned out the way you have. Put down the ZeroHedge along with all of the associated conspiracy websites and join us in the real world.

              1. The real world where a couple of anti-BLM protestors are being charged with a hate crime for painting over something that shouldn’t have been allowed to be painted on the public street to begin with?

                1. “Don’t believe what you saw with your own eyes, it’s all a conspiracy!”

              2. Oh my good heavens


      2. Only in hyper liberal cities. Here 9 people have bern charged with terrorism after burning a cop car.

      3. That is what the couple was doing; if only a couple hundred people had showed up and burned a couple of cars and stolen the paint and brushes and rollers, it would be OK.
        Oh, yeah, and kissed a little democratic ass.

      4. I know what you mean about the fear. A fairly sober minded acquaintance of mine, someone who has been talking about organizing, letter writing, fundraising, as means of political change versus taking the same amount of money and adding another row onto the ammo firm’s walls—someone who’s run for political office for a major party: that person told me recently that perhaps the police should be defunded, if that’s all they’re going to do. And instead, conservative-minded folk should get together and start forming mutual assistance groups.

        I felt like I’d just been slapped. We’re not quite at Bleedin’ Kansas yet, but it doesn’t seem as inconceivable as it did a year ago.

        1. CNN: White supremacist militias being formed to subvert police power!

        2. If we’re not going to actually fight fire with fire, this is over. America is going to be dismantled at a rapid pace, the constitution will be scrapped — perhaps literally — and a violent marxist racial-superiority movement will be in the drivers seat.

          We can have an endless finger-pointing debate about how we got here and for how long we’ve been sliding in this direction, but that’s totally beside the point now. We’re here, and moving at high speed towards absolute tyranny of the sort that will make us long for the days when we used to bitch about red light cameras and tax laws.

          This isn’t in the abstract anymore. This is real. This is what the second amendment was written for. Are we going to use it while we still can?

          Because let’s face facts here — the only reason this BLM movement is seeing so much success is because people — and institutions — are scared of them. For good reason. And they’re not scared of us. At all. Oh sure, they’ll say the opposite — that the right is what they’re really afraid of and BLM is a peaceful justice movement — but nobody believes that. No, the fact is that fear is motivating this massive capitulation, because BLM has waged full-spectrum warfare against our system, and the right has simply done nothing to counter them.

          The only solution we’re left with — sadly — is to make them equally afraid of us. Or at least demonstrate that we are not allowing this to continue unopposed anymore, and force will be met with force in return. If conservatives organized themselves into armed and disciplined self-defense militias and showed up at every single BLM event, protected statues from desecration, and performed armed marches through downtowns — and crucially, through the neighborhoods and homes of major executives, politicians, celebrities, media figures, and top activists, their fear level would go up tremendously and they’d back off a lot of their support for BLM, opting instead to return to a more neutral position on these issues.

          Sure the optics would be terrible and the media would go thermonuclear — but who cares? We have literally nothing else to lose at this point.

        3. If Democrat controlled cities want to defund their police department, I support them. If those in Democrat controlled cities want to loot and burn their city down, I don’t mind.

          When business flee to states and cities with well funded police departments and a healthy respect for the right to keep and bear arms, Democrats lose their tax base and voting population.

          Maybe by the time the next census comes around, they lose a few slots in Congress to.

          1. LMAO there isn’t going to be a Congress by the time the next census comes around. At least not one that any of us would recognize. This isn’t about cities. This isn’t about votes. This isn’t going to stop.

            Everyone really needs to get past this thinking that any of this is going to end with ‘Democrat controlled cities’ and that their tax base is going to wake up and make it all backfire on them in the next election.

            That’s delusional. They’re grabbing for EVERYTHING now. You can get fired from your job for simply stating out loud that you’re voting for Trump. Or anyone not approved by BLM for that matter. They’re fixing things so they NEVER lose another election again — because that’s what marxists do.

            They’ve taken over the media, they’ve taken over the cultural institutions, they’ve taken over academia, they’ve taken over much of the military, and they control the bureaucracy outright. The one institution they don’t have a firm grip on is the police, but their solution now is to either disband it, or make it culturally unacceptable to conduct policing — which they’ve done quite successfully. They’re pushing for a completely mail-in election, which will of course be the final straw; the votes will be fixed in every close race in the country, and there it ends.

            None of this is backfiring on them. There no no scenario in which they don’t get everything they want. Unless we’re prepared to arm ourselves and fight this as the civil war it actually is, we’ve already lost. America is over.

        4. If police are defunded taxpayers aren’t getting that money back. The money will be diverted to fund more extreme left activists – who by the way will end up with the same powers and protections police currently have (if not more).

          There is no path for defunding police to work out better for anyone not on the far left.

      5. We have to start pushing back on this shit now. NOW!

        I am inclined to agree.

        1. Good luck keeping your job and pushing back against the narrative. Good luck even getting your viewpoint out there when Twitter, YouTube, and Reddit delete your post and permanently ban you from their platform. Don’t worry – when you’re unemployed and living on the street, you can hold a cardboard sign and shout your problematic views at passers-by.

          1. I’m already unemployed, and I don’t have a social media presence. Social media is a sewer. I usually work retail or other simple labor jobs. I’m not scared of the woke mob. They might jail me; they cannot rob me of my conscience.

            Of course, the logical end-point to this sort of political ostracism is a firing squad, but we’re not there yet.

            1. It’s what you deserve.

              1. Suck my dick.

              2. “It’s what you deserve.“

                You first faggot.

      6. I’ve been saying this for years. And suffered much derision for doing so.

    2. Not that the cops there have pretty much turned a blind eye to vandalism, theft, assault, and arson,

      In fairness, Martinez is a pretty sleepy suburban town. Martinez cops haven’t been anywhere near the rioting.

      1. Still a shithole? Or is that a better description of Vallejo, down the street?

        1. Vallejo is a shithole. Martinez has a scuzzy-ish “old downtown” next to the oil refinery, but otherwise it ranges from nice to downright swanky. I live between there and Richmond, and politically speaking the area is quite purple, so this little altercation doesn’t surprise me at all.

          1. Thanks. I’d only driven through there 20 or so years ago to get to Napa/Sonoma. Or to get to Marine World, after they moved it out of Redwood City. Vallejo even then, did not impress.

            Honestly, the notable part of Benicia or Martinez were the trips over the bridges, and gawking at the reserve fleet.

            Contra Costa can get surprisingly swanky. I was surprised that a lot of the high dollar real estate was inland, where it can get hot as balls, while the oceanfront stuff was all industrial, Iron Triangle, and slummy. I like the fog though. I’d love Marin, were it not for the people.

  9. It looks like they were correcting the color. It isn’t Yellow Lives Matter.

  10. The Black Lives Matter movement is an important civil rights cause that deserves all of our attention.

    What? Why does an openly Marxist organization that demands the end of the nuclear family and the forced redistribution of wealth demand “all of our attention”?

    It does not demand all of our attention. And the fact that these types of cavalier statements are thrown out everywhere is deeply concerning.

    1. A few generations of Marxist themed ‘education’ is now coming of age. That BLM is part of it is coincidental; the non-black kids who are part of the street festivities are clueless but ready to be part of something they don’t comprehend or understand.

    2. It does demand all of our attention.
      And those who are paying attention are spending a couple more hours at the range each week.

      1. “And those who are paying attention are spending a couple more hours at the range each week.”

        Bring friends. Start getting used to working together.

    3. Gee it’s almost like libertarianism was never anything except a thinly disguised Marxist movement.

      1. Reason does not define libertarianism.

    4. And the fact that these types of cavalier statements are thrown out everywhere is deeply concerning.

      Which is also the silver lining, actually. Because one thing that throwing around these types of cavalier statements reveals is that those throwing them around are not, in fact, paying attention.

  11. “We must address the root and byproduct of systemic racism in our country. The Black Lives Matter movement is an important civil rights cause that deserves all of our attention. The mural completed last weekend was a peaceful and powerful way to communicate the importance of Black lives in Contra Costa County and the country. We must continue to elevate discussions and actually listen to one another in an effort to heal our community and country.”

    That almost sounds like content-based discrimination, as if it were some other sort of statement it might not “deserve all of our attention”. What other sorts of statements have gotten the green-light for public murals like this one? None of them, by any chance? Just BLM? Sounds like it might be problematic.

    1. The mural completed last weekend was a peaceful and powerful way to communicate the importance of Black lives in Contra Costa County and the country.

      Peaceful? Sure. Powerful? You’re making empty symbolic gestures that aren’t furthering the discussion in any way. All it’s doing is demonstrating that you’ve already got the power to shove your slogan in everyone’s face. This isn’t really helping to fight oppression.

    2. And she’s our new DA with an agenda. But, she checked all the boxes which was important because she replaced a disgraced DA who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

  12. The messaging is clear: If you don’t support a marxist movement, you’re guilty of a hate crime.

    1. Q: How long have you been a Nazi?
      A: I have never been a …
      You admit it. Tear him down.

      Once accused of being a Nazi, there is no return. Being accused of/being a Marxist gets you extra sprinkles.

      1. Check the databases at the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and Anti-Defamation League (ADL) to verify you are not supporting any racist, white supremacist causes. Also, be sure to donate regularly to atone for the sin of your white privilege.

      2. Isn’t it “When did you stop being a Nazi?”

  13. So yesterday I read a post here or there that said that kids’ in a class where debating was required were like scared pups who didn’t want to be controversial. That non-white kids are a big part of the BLM festivities suggests otherwise. But then being ignorant of history and fact-free (who won the Revolutionary war? Who was the president from 1992 to 2000? etc) helps when tearing down things. Like the statue of US Grant (he was a slaver, right?) https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/22/anti-statue-movement-has-taken-turn-into-absurdity/

    You are cursed to live in interesting times. Enjoy.

    1. Even more egregious they tore down the statue of Colonel Heg and someone defaced the statue of Frederick Douglas. Heg was a militant, immigrant, Abolitionist who died fighting to end slavery and Douglas, a former slave for fought for abolition.

      1. But Tony assures me that this is all about conservatives being secret neo-confederates.

      2. They actually beheaded Heg.

        1. Yeah, my mistake. Still…

      3. Protesters wrecked a statue of Philadelphia abolitionist and philanthropist Matthias Baldwin. They defaced the face of the statue, covered it in paint, and scrawled the word “colonizer” on the sculpture’s pedestal.

        There was also apparently an attempt to topple the statue of the abolitionist.

      4. “The Defiling of Miguel de Cervantes”

        “…a pack of ideologues in San Francisco desecrated…statues in Golden Gate Park on Saturday. …that of Cervantes had the word BASTARD painted in red across it, with red splashed across his eyes and those of Don Quixote and Sancho Panza. Perhaps whoever did it wasn’t quite sure who Cervantes was, but thought that if he had two figures kneeling in front of him, he had to be, well, a bastard. Never mind that those figures are his own fictional creations. At least the vandals didn’t scrawl “SLAVE OWNING PIG” on his pedestal, as they did with Grant. (Leave aside that Grant freed the one slave he ever owned, who had been a gift from his father-in-law.) They probably didn’t know enough about Cervantes to be sure if he owned slaves or not. So we can give them credit for that much restraint.

        “But BASTARD? Cervantes was never a cop, let alone a bastard cop. A tax collector, a combatant in the Battle of Lepanto, a spy—an agent of the state, to be sure, but not an enforcer of the law. The statue in Golden Gate Park commemorates him for none of these functions, but for his brilliance as a writer. The man almost single-handedly created the modern novel. Who knows what novels might be popular among the Antifa and hard Left, probably books about oppressed underdogs and their ultimately successful struggles against unjust systems (so not 1984). If they read any fiction at all, and not just political screeds, it owes a debt to Cervantes.

        “Consider this passage from Don Quixote (in John Ormsby’s translation): “Freedom, Sancho, is one of the most precious gifts that heaven has bestowed upon men; no treasures that the earth holds buried or the sea conceals can compare with it; for freedom, as for honour, life may and should be ventured; and on the other hand, captivity is the greatest evil that can fall to the lot of man.”

        This from a man who the Ottomans enslaved yet opposed the expulsion of the Moors from Spain, who saw freedom as every human being’s birthright, regardless of ethnicity or background. Perhaps those who desecrated his memorial might disagree with Cervantes regarding “honour,” and on anything to do with heaven. Perhaps they’d have complicated ideas about freedom vs. the collective. Yet if their own political message conflicts with his sentiment here, who needs it? They called the man a bastard, and splashed bloody red across his eyes. Whether they knew who he was or not, that constitutes an attack on literature per se. And an attack on literature is an attack not just on thought and creativity, but on the human spirit itself. So much, then, for celebrating Emancipation Day.

  14. Educate yourself on what we’re dealing with.

    Here’s Helen Pluckrose deconstructing the movement of social justice and post-modern/post-marxist thought. An excellent summation and history of the movement.

    Watch this before it’s taken down.

    Videos featuring Pluckrose are already being demonetized by youtube.

    1. Reason is to concerned about being “hip” in the eyes of the young people, that it’s missing a very major boat. It’s being bested by Liberal intellectuals in every corner of the debate, while sneering at them or making weak-tea ‘too-be-sure’ comments.

      Come on, Reason, get back to your liberal values. The cool kids you’re hooking up with are nothing more than cultural brownshirts screaming about institutional racism.

        1. ‘to-be-sure’.

      1. It is just like the letter that the various public intellectuals signed affirming the need for free inquiry. Even then, they could not stand up and tell the truth and call this what it is. Most of the letter was reason like throat clearing about how evil the right is and making excuses for the people responsible for the cancel culture.

        We are seeing a bout of national madness not seen in a very long time. There are real totalitarians showing up trying to transform the society into something out of 1984. And they are entrenched throughout nearly all of our powerful institutions. And what does reason do? Shrugs and spends most of its time making false equivalences and excuses for them. It is just pure pathetic cowardice on their part.

      2. How the fuck can you be smart enough to realize what’s happening with BLM but so retarded you can’t see that Reason is a nakedly Marxist publication?

        1. We’re not even going with “secretly Marxist,” anymore, huh?

          1. My Marxist dog and Marxist goldfish agreed, Reason is Marxist.

            1. Are they pedos like you Jeffy?

    2. Thanks for posting that

  15. A crime is a crime is a crime. Why does the motivation matter to the State?
    If I kill someone, does it matter if I did it because of jealousy, revenge, money or thrill? I killed someone, and their is a penalty for that, more is just double jeopardy.

    1. Adding ‘hate’ to the crime further divides us into them and those who will be rounded up and re-educated.

      1. But I am assured that having a black national anthem, black only spaces, black specific policing, black schools, etc is totes not segregation by the party that championed segregation.

        1. As long as white people pay for it. And reparations, too.

          1. When is someone going to mention that being taxed for their entire adult working life to fund the fooking “War on Poverty” amounts to already having paid reparations?

  16. Nelson filmed.


    1. Videoed.

    2. Does the sun rise?
      Shall we change the phrase to “horizon fall”?
      “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
      ‘Decimate’ was the Roman practice of killing every tenth military age male to punish a village. Now it is used to mean total destruction.
      And it probably was digital, not tape.

      1. *recorded

        And decimation was a form of punishment in the Roman army, not for conquered villages.
        Crassus was one noteworthy example of it, after a loss to Spartacus’ slave militia.
        A legion was divided into groups of 10. Each man drew lots to randomly determine who would be sacrificed. That unfortunate man was then beaten to death by his only slightly more fortunate colleagues.
        But you are correct about how the word’s usage has been corrupted.
        “Annihilation” is another example. Instead of being used to describe two opposite but relatively equal forces meeting in mutual destruction, it is more often used as a more colorful way of say “destroy”.
        “The 49ers annihilated the Packers in the NFC championship game.”

  17. The city, by allowing BLM to paint a mural on the street, effectively turned the street into a free paint zone. If BLM can paint there, anyone else can and even paint over BLM’s mural. This prosecution is a complete outrage against the Constitution. The government is engaging in viewpoint discrimination by allowing BLM to do this but not people with other viewpoints.

    This is straight up totalitarian shit. And it is an enormous threat to the Republic and our civil liberties. These local governments are adopting BLM as a state sponsored religion and mandated politics to the exclusion of all dissent.

    1. Well, you might have put it a wee tad strongly, but…

      I do wonder: Apply to the city for permission to paint “WLM” for “White Lives Matter”, and see what happens? Someone should try it! THEN we’d have a strong case to take to court!

      1. In Washington DC they have a similar mural and other organizations have applied to do the same and been told no. They are currently suing. And only someone as dishonest as you are could pretend that anyone with any message the government didn’t approve of, which in this case is anything other than BLM would be turned down.

        1. Well I do eat my own shit.

          1. Hinh?

          2. Tulpa is being an ID thief again! Tulpa’s ethics are even lower than those of Der TrumpfenFuhrer, which I had thought was NOT possible!

            1. Hover your mouse-cursor over “SQRLSY One” entry and you will see that the real one has an embedded link. The fake one from that Minion of the Evil One, known as Tulpa, does NOT have an embedded link! I hope that the long arm of the law will one day punish this evil Tulpa, an identity thief!

              1. False flag operation your part.

                And you DO eat your own shit. You’ve admitted it many times.

                1. Shitsy Shitler lies in support of Tulpa lies! Assholes of a feather, flock together! More news at 11:00!

    2. The city, by allowing BLM to paint a mural on the street, effectively turned the street into a free paint zone.

      I don’t know about that. Is a park with a statue in the middle a free statue zone? Or more broadly, a free art zone? Anything you feel like using to decorate the public space is ok, regardless of official permission?

      The government is engaging in viewpoint discrimination by allowing BLM to do this but not people with other viewpoints.

      Did the couple even try to get a permit to paint on the street? If they wanted to go down that angle, they could have. They probably would have been denied and then had grounds for a lawsuit.

      That’s the way separation of church and state activists have gone about their battle against religious symbols on and around government buildings.

      1. I don’t know about that. Is a park with a statue in the middle a free statue zone? Or more broadly, a free art zone? Anything you feel like using to decorate the public space is ok, regardless of official permission?

        They never got permission. It was just painted and the city allowed it to stay and declared it official. IF BLM can do that, why can’t someone paint it over?

        Painting it over is a political expression just as much as painting it in the first place. This isn’t a statue. This is a piece of grafitti painted on the street. Why does BLM And only BLM have a right to do that?

        1. “They never got permission. It was just painted and the city allowed it to stay and declared it official. IF BLM can do that, why can’t someone paint it over?”

          That’s inaccurate, from what I’ve read elsewhere.

          The temporary Black Lives Matter mural in downtown Martinez was painted in front of the Wakefield Taylor Courthouse on Saturday, July 4, after a resident applied for a permit that was granted by the city.

          The permit was approved July 1, and put in place on the 4th. The vandalism of it took place the same day it was completely.

          You can discuss the problems with granting permits for political messaging on public property, but the original person went through the process and the vandals did not.

          1. Amen! John is an ideological idiot!

            By allowing US Air Force pilots to land their (Government Almighty approved) aircraft at Podunk Air Force Base, AND at Burbbleson AFB, a “fair” Government Almighty must now allow ALL comers and goers to land their (Government Almighty NOT approved!) aircraft at Podunk Air Force Base, AND at Burbbleson AFB!!!

            Otherwise, IT’S NOT FAIR!!!! And conservatards make fun of “it’s not fair” whiny-babies!

            1. The USAF is a government entity and owns those Air Force basis. What a completely false analogy. Did you bother to think that one through before you wrote it?

              1. Cities are government entities that own the sidewalks, in most cases. So if the city allows a nice, clearly delineated, tasteful “mural” on the sidewalk, all sort of crude and messy things MUST now be allowed? On the fly, w/o a permit?

                Yes, but only if the crude and messy things support MY ideology, is the thinking around here!

                1. No, it still fails because the USAF is a government organization using government property. To be close to the same you would have to say the air force allowing one group of private plane owners to land on air force bases. It really isn’t that hard to come up with a better analogy or to see why yours fails to much. But keep digging.

          2. ‘The process’. Fucking LOL. Do you know how long it takes to get a city government to approve anything in California? Three days isn’t long enough for them to admit they received the first round of correspondence. Or the EIR, or the traffic engineer study, or whether the artwork met with the city’s official colors, aesthetics, and if it didn’t impugn any resident’s viewshed.

            Yet BLM got permission instantly for their little graffiti display.

            City government and city speech are supposed to be viewpoint neutral. The ludicrously quickened approval shows the city isn’t neutral here, wouldn’t begin to offer a more inclusive message—like “All Lives Matter”—the same consideration, and is using “the process” to favor one group’s political speech. And stomp all of that group’s competitors.

            1. I don’t know that it was an expedited process since I don’t know when he applied. I only know that the mural was placed three days after the permit was issued.

          3. It’s revealing to note how supporters carefully limit their scope in order to protect their cherished conclusion. BLM protesters have torn down statues and engaged in mass graffiti all over the country with effectively no effort to punish those responsible (other than by the Feds). But to protect the politically driven punishment of those state officials oppose BLM supporters pretend none of this exists and focuses only on the overwritten message’s permit which itself was a result of political corruption.

      2. Statues are “permanent” and most of the ones being destroyed were privately funded gifts.

        This is graffiti on a street, ephemeral and temporary.

    3. ^THIS^

      It’s 1A all the way. No “crime” was committed

    4. If the original painters of the mural (we torture the definition of that word; it is a political slogan, not a “mural”) got a permit explicitly for their message and theirs alone, then it’s the state endorsing an extreme political position and using public funds to do so.

      I am so tired of this. BLM is a racist ideology (not to mention it is primarily a vehicle of Marxism). It is rank tribalism, elevating one group’s needs and values (and rights) over another’s based on skin color. That BLM does not explicitly name “white people” as the problem isn’t a defense. Otherwise there would not be this pushback against innocuous statements like “all lives matter.”

    5. The argument then would boil down to “you got a permit?” BLM was given a permit. Not providing a permit to others for similar political messages would probably eventually get to the courts where the government would be told “you screwed up giving BLM that permit, you cannot pick and choose”.

  18. What is a “hate crime?”
    Anything you do that I hate.
    Thank you Justice Ginsberg.

  19. Ladies and gentlemen (and anything else seated here) of the jury, the state will now prove exactly what the thoughts were in each of the accused’s heads at the moment of the alleged crime. This will clearly establish they had no thoughts of anti-marxism, no thoughts of supporting the nuclear family, no thoughts of suppressing state sponsored terrorism; only hate. We will do this by say it is so.
    The prosecution rests.

    1. addendum: your honor; please correct the record to read “saying” instead of “say” in the last sentence.

  20. Thoroughly repulsive. “National Socialist German Workers’ Party” is, similarly, a wholly innocuous sequence of words when divorced from the organization it describes.

  21. Hate crime laws are bullshit. It’s just a special class of thought crime. It’s really no surprise a California pol is wielding it like a bludgeon.

    Looting and burning a store? Powerful. Painting over a mural that promotes a racist ideology antithetical to American values? Unforgivable.

    1. Commie shill for Chinese spyware – go back to Beijing.

  22. he U.S. government locks up its people at the highest rate by far”

    All those Ughers and other muslim groups and even Chinese and now Hong Konger’s would disagree with this statement.

    1. They aren’t locked up. They’re completely free to move around the complex inside the fence. And their wives are completely free to stay at home with the party members who’ve been assigned to live with them.

    2. Given how large China’s population is, that still might not be enough to put them in the #1 spot per capita, although it might do a pretty solid job of clearing the “by far” part.

      Then again, there’s a reasonable argument to be made that the entire population of China is in a prison, so…

  23. Idiots! Put on masks and do it at night. Duh! Or borrow a truck with a paint sprayer and cover it up with a simple drive over. It can be on accident if caught. Be smart people!

    1. Hey – chill out – it’s just another celebration in the Summer of Love . . .

  24. This is no more a hate crime than destroying monuments and statues is! Both are destroying things sanctioned by the state that do not represent their values. You might read that and say, “but that means their values say that black lives don’t matter, right?” No! Black Lives Matter has about as much to do with black lives actually mattering as Planned Parenthood has to do with planning parenthood. They are admitted Marxists and Anarchists and do not reflect the values of true American patriots!

  25. Vile totalitarian leftists. When will this leftist nightmare reach it’s peak?

    1. Right before people wise up and begin thinning their numbers.

  26. They’re guilty of vandalism for painting over a city-authorized street painting, but their motivation was political — they disagree with the police brutality, racism narrative — so it’s not a hate crime. The DA’s statement clearly shows selective prosecution based on political views. This couple will hire a lawyer, threaten a lawsuit and get the “hate crime” charges dropped and a deal on the vandalism.

  27. Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton justified her decision to bring charges against the pair in a statement released this week. “We must address the root and byproduct of systemic racism in our country. The Black Lives Matter movement is an important civil rights cause that deserves all of our attention.

    Consider the open letter from BLM on the occasion of the death of Cuba’s long-term Communist dictator, Fidel Castro. If you wonder what BLM would like to see happen, read along as they celebrate the life of Fidel Castro: “Revolution transcends borders; the freedom of oppressed people and people of color is all bound up together wherever we are. In Cuba, South Africa, Palestine, Angola, Tanzania, Mozambique, Grenada, Venezuela, Haiti, African America,”

    What they want for America is what they saw in Cuba, Palestine, Haiti, Venezuala! I’m stunned frankly that Zimbabwe was not included in this list. Remember in Zimbabwe white farmers were murdered by the hundreds and their farms were confiscated and doled out to “the people”. These actions predicated a famine in Zimbambwe, a nation that had been one of the leading exporters of food in Africa. Seems that none of “the people” knew how to or cared about farming, so no food was grown. This was, of course, the fault of racist colonizers, somehow even though they had all fled the country or been murdered.


    We are feeling many things as we awaken to a world without Fidel Castro. There is an overwhelming sense of loss, complicated by fear and anxiety. Although no leader is without their flaws, we must push back against the rhetoric of the right and come to the defense of El Comandante. And there are lessons that we must revisit and heed as we pick up the mantle in changing our world, as we aspire to build a world rooted in a vision of freedom and the peace that only comes with justice. It is the lessons that we take from Fidel.

    From Fidel, we know that revolution is sparked by an idea, by radical imaginings, which sometimes take root first among just a few dozen people coming together in the mountains. It can be a tattered group of meager resources, like in Sierra Maestro in 1956 or St. Elmo Village in 2013.

    Revolution is continuous and is won first in the hearts and minds of the people and is continually shaped and reshaped by the collective. No single revolutionary ever wins or even begins the revolution. The revolution begins only when the whole is fully bought in and committed to it. And it is never over.

    Revolution transcends borders; the freedom of oppressed people and people of color is all bound up together wherever we are. In Cuba, South Africa, Palestine, Angola, Tanzania, Mozambique, Grenada, Venezuela, Haiti, African America, and North Dakota. We must not only root for each other but invest in each other’s struggles, lending our voices, bodies, and resources to liberation efforts which may seem distant from the immediacy of our daily existence.

    Revolution is rooted in the recognition that there are certain fundamentals to which every being has a right, just by virtue of one’s birth: healthy food, clean water, decent housing, safe communities, quality healthcare, mental health services, free and quality education, community spaces, art, democratic engagement, regular vacations, sports, and places for spiritual expression are not questions of resources, but questions of political will and they are requirements of any humane society.

    Revolution requires that the determination to create and preserve these things for our people takes precedent over individual drives for power, recognition, and enrichment.

    A final lesson is that to be a revolutionary, you must strive to live in integrity. As a Black network committed to transformation, we are particularly grateful to Fidel for holding Mama Assata Shakur, who continues to inspire us. We are thankful that he provided a home for Brother Michael Finney Ralph Goodwin, and Charles Hill, asylum to Brother Huey P. Newton, and sanctuary for so many other Black revolutionaries who were being persecuted by the American government during the Black Power era. We are indebted to Fidel for sending resources to Haiti following the 2010 earthquake and attempting to support Black people in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina when our government left us to die on rooftops and in floodwaters. We are thankful that he provided a space where the traditional spiritual work of African people could flourish, regardless of his belief system.

    With Fidel’s passing there is one more lesson that stands paramount: when we are rooted in collective vision when we bind ourselves together around quests for infinite freedom of the body and the soul, we will be victorious. As Fidel ascends to the realm of the ancestors, we summon his guidance, strength, and power as we recommit ourselves to the struggle for universal freedom. Fidel Vive!

  28. The author uses BLM communication to dismantle an argument made by the DA.

  29. So, how about a mural for the NRA?

    And if it gets vandalized, it should be a hate crime because the NRA is a organization overwhelmingly supported by whites, simply trying to protect themselves from an oppressive criminal society and government.

  30. Reason carrying water for the Marxist assholes again.

    1. It’s extremely tiresome.

  31. I thought BLM was a Marxist organization rooted in identity politics?

    Why talk as if they’re a legit organization? They’re a hate group.

    That couple represent the silent majority and right now that block has got to have steam coming out of their ears.

    “We must address the root and byproduct of systemic racism in our country. The Black Lives Matter movement is an important civil rights cause that deserves all of our attention. The mural completed last weekend was a peaceful and powerful way to communicate the importance of Black lives in Contra Costa County and the country. We must continue to elevate discussions and actually listen to one another in an effort to heal our community and country.”

    Bull fucken shit. A) There’s no systemic racism if you don’t clearly define it and b) what discussion? You people aren’t interested in discussion. You want SUBMISSION.

    As an aside, did I read right? Scotus just gave half of Oklahoma to Native Americans?

    The 2020 timeline is getting crazier and weirder and retarded.

    1. “Scotus just gave half of Oklahoma to Native Americans?”

      Yup. Gorsuch said the Territory of Oklahoma didn’t have the power to ‘deestablish’ the five or six Tribes living there at the time. No deestablishment, still Indian dirt, which makes crimes there committed by or against a Native American, a Federal or Tribal case. Not a state one.

      My question is, if deestablishment wasn’t valid, what in hell happened with title transfers of real property and mineral rights? Aren’t those invalidjurisdiction after IIRC 1907? Cushing, OK, is a giant part of the oil and gas business in this country. Do the Tribes have a property right in the pipelines and product that cross their land?

      Then there’s all of the prior criminal cases involving a NA in the disputed area. Are all of those shitcanned now through lack of jurisdiction?

      It’s an amazingly fucked up opinion, even for those clowns.

    2. As an aside, did I read right? Scotus just gave half of Oklahoma to Native Americans?

      I am looking forward to see how this turns out.

      I have no doubt it will, in the end, work out amicably.

      But it will likely be on less favorable terms than the state of Oklahoma would have initially preferred.

  32. All over the country, leftist municipal governments are calling what are obviously political statements “murals.” I assume that will be the cities’ defense when they turn down some group’s request to do a mural that says “All Lives Matter.” One will be denominated high art while the other will be called trash.

    In truth, they are political statements. If the city allows the one, it must allow the other, otherwise it’s guilty of viewpoint discrimination. Their defense that it’s art not a statement should be laughed out of court.

  33. Seems like Turnabout Is No Longer Fair Play. How come this one wonders, or is that the proverbial dumb question, it depending on Whose Ox Is Being Gored

  34. Just curious…how many hate crime charges have been filed against those stealing and destroying black-owned business property during recent protests/riots?

  35. The hell with the Black Lives Matter movement! It’s a joke, and nothing more than a tool to make “whitey” feel guilty! Well, I don’t feel guilty for anything involving black people! I feel pissed off that they think their lives matter more than anyone else! Because according to the constant killing of black kids in ‘da hood’ …it doesn’t matter at all! Also, I think BLM is likely a $$$ front for the Democratic party!

    1. And I know that among my white friends and family, you’d find lots of support.

      What’s interesting is, my family and friends include many non-whites. Even blacks. And none of us would dare bring this subject up!

      So much for civil discussion and agreeing to disagree.

      “We want it all and we want it now” – The Doors

  36. Oddly though if you were to paint a giant phallus and say you love to have the starfish pounded, that would not be hate speech but a love song.
    If anyone paints the initials of an organization funded by Soros and it’s principle are Marxism, I won’t paint over it, I’ll tear it out with a skid steer and repave it.

  37. Please someone; go get city permission to paint MAGA down the road 🙂 What; are liberals against making America Great??? or what??? Who could possibly be against that unless they were treasonous… Oh wait; that’s right Democrats are treasonous… They want to over-throw the USA and it’s Constitution and replace it with communism with the re-enactment of slavery.

  38. We criminalize EVERYTHING…”possession of tools to commit vandalism or graffiti”

    We have the world’s highest incarceration rate BY FAR. This shit is exactly why. Or as my great uncle used to say, “If you can’t find a crime, it’s because you don’t want to.”

  39. Google easily work and google pays me every hour and every week just $5K to $8K for doing online work from home. I am a universty student and I work n my part time just 2 to 3 hours a day easily from home. Now every one can earn extra cash for doing online home system and make a good life by just open this website and follow instructions on this page………Click For Full Details.

  40. In retrospect, they would have done better to paint the BLM demonstration rather than the mural; the total incompetence of the BLM organizers to keep Antifa out of their ranks has rendered their message invisible, and has painted them with the broad brush of just another gaggle of howling idiots yelling about something, instead of a considered group of demonstrators calling attention to a cause. Who sees the cause in the midst of looting, burning buildings and businesses, trashed police cars – it’s like trying to comment on the flavor of the cheese used on a garlic, anchovy, and jalapeno pizza: completely overwhelmed by the surroundings. Now we have the specter of the buffoon Sharpton and the baboon DeBlasio defacing the street in front of Trump Tower – owned by the guy who has done more for POC than both of them combined, by a factor of 10 – by painting a BLM message on the street. Like Anders Breivik demonstrating against the cruelty of stepping on a cockroach. Black lives may matter, but not to the extent of blotting out the sun; BLM fatigue and the disdain created by the anarchist rioters has gone way too far for a problem that affects 1/7th of the population, but occupies about 90% of the news cycle, and has done more harm to black lives than police brutality has in its entire history. The entire movement has become a tiresome absurdity, and needs to go away, to be replaced by something more mainstream, relevant, effective, and law-abiding.

    1. BLM wasn’t infiltrated, they are what they always were


  41. The key takeaway isn’t that the couple had a right to apply paint to a city street, whether or not BLM writers had a real permit, but that:
    a) The city is going to endorse the message as its own and
    b) As a permeant feature contributed to the street it is now the city’s property.

    So a charge of 400 dollars of vandalism should stick. However, how then can there be a denial of other’s civil liberties or a hate crime involved? Who are the victims (the city?) and were is the racial animus directed towards “the race” of the civic authorities (mostly white?)

    The city shouldn’t have it both ways. Either they own the message and don’t have to permit others to street paint and cannot add the enhanced charges for a violation of civil rights or hate crime OR they don’t own the message or paint and MUST allow others the same access to write their message.

    This nuance may seem unclear to some, but it is one key to the prosecution of the couple on enhanced charges.

  42. As is too often the case, you guys aren’t even getting the half of it.

    First off, Martinez is the County Seat for Contra Costa County. At 1.2M, the third most populous county in the SF Bay Area after Santa Clara and Alameda County, in that order. Note that SF County, the most infamous one, comes in at number for with less than 900,000 souls.

    There was a gun threatening incident related to this retarded street painting in front of the Contra Costa County Court House at the same time the so called “mural” was being painted over as referenced here.


    And then today, another investigation and possible hate crime charges against the perps who dared to paint “WHITE LIVES MATTER” on another street in Martinez on Tuesday.


    As someone who spent most of their life in Contra Costa County, as someone who now lives in Vallejo in Solano County, as someone who frequents Martinez, CA and especially as someone who spent half their career in local government employment and worked with many city public works departments in Contra Costa and Solano Counties, I can tell you that public works people don’t take kindly to those who mess up public streets and roads for their own purposes.

    This is all so sureal as to be unbelievable.

    Libertarians, who have called for criminal and police reforms for years, have let this whole BLM thing steal their thunder on this. I no longer have any hope for libertarian ideals in America.

  43. If I wash away “Black Lives Matter” graffiti on walls, am I spreading terror and guilty of hate crime because that gesture amounts to me not caring about black lives? Because the text says “Black Lives Matter”? What if a black kid vandalized a city sanctioned blue lives matter line on the road?

    By the admission of the ring leaders, “BLM” is not a literal statement that values black lives. They admit that they don’t care about black kids getting shot by black vandals. They were unconcerned about spreading the virus to vulnerable communities, and shed no tears on Latinos who are dying in states like CA. “BLM” is politically charged statement used by radicals, no different than “Viva la Revolution” or “power to the people” or “God is great.” It’s the sentiment or movement behind the term that matters.

    Society is indulging a childish cabal set out to remake society according to their random standards. If cretins toppled a federal statue, we have to somehow “understand” them if the figure owned slaves. If a couple painted over a line used by dangerous radical burning down our streets, they get charged with a hate crime.

    1. “Society is indulging a childish cabal set out to remake society according to their random standards.”

      Random standards that change hourly.

  44. Freedom of expression, as long as it’s state approved. Nice…

  45. Any society that has “protected” classes of people is not a free society.

  46. The lamentations of the clingerwomen . . .

    are entertaining.

  47. I wonder if there will be hate crimes or even vandalism charges against the person(s) who painted “Black Lives Matter” over a local (obnoxious) local longstanding (conservative) sign in Massachusetts.


    Still waiting…..

    Hmmmm…. maybe tomorrow????

  48. The attempt of all this is to suppress political speech, which is wrong on the face of it.
    At one time the ACLU would come to their defense, but it’s been coopted by the left for so long it forgot its original mission.

  49. It is a massive mistake to call the US a carceral state. Yes, the US has the highest prison population. However, the US likely has the highest violent crime. There are about 1.2 million violent crime arrests each year in the US according to FBI data. There are an estimated 5 million total violent crimes each year. Many victims never report crime because they are scared. Considering there are 1.2 million violent crime arrests each year and the prison population is about 1.6 million, logic proves the US does not have a incarceration problem. The US has a violent crime problem.

  50. If they paint over the black paint will they be considered criminals as the people charged are?
    Are political signs free speech?
    The Supreme Court agreed, finding that the town’s interest in regulating signs does not outweigh its residents’ right to free speech. The Court’s decision holds that signs are an important medium of political, religious, or personal messages for which there are no exact alternatives.
    In Contra Costa County:
    Political signs may be erected or displayed before an election until ten days after the election inclusive. These signs may not be erected in the right-of-way of any state highway, county highway, or public road or street. (Ords. 92-36)

  51. A legal issue to bring up: that retarded graffiti on the street obscures the lane markings, etc., which creates unsafe driving conditions! How are you supposed to see the boundaries of the lanes with all that graffiti covering lane demarcations? I’d raise a public safety threat to motorists! That kind of painting on a public roadway should be illegal to begin with because it’s unsafe to motorists! Like I said, some worthless, crap-for-brains liberal Democrat retard approved this!

  52. Two People Charged With a Hate Crime for Painting Over a Black Lives Matter Mural

    I find it strange the article provides literally no evidence – not even the assertion – this will not help BLM.

  53. First of all, how can the city issue a permit to paint over the road markings to jeopardize driver and pedestrian safety? Those letters aren’t by any measure even a piece of art. And to have a hate crime you have to prove that painting over this “mural” is fueled by animosity towards a protected group. But there is no hate towards actual human beings involved. It’s about as good of a hate crime as destroying a piece of Soviet propaganda. And how is it real or personal property of other person? If those those letter are personal property why are some people allowed to appropriate a public road? (although they should consider copyright… they’ve been painting the same letters in black).

    The couple can be charged with painting on a public road over the markings, sure. But it’s hypocritical, why other people paining on the road ok? Contra Costa county DA just showed her true colors as a political hack.

    1. The CC County DA has an agenda. She replaced the formerly disgraced, corrupt DA after he was caught.

      All her cases will be race infused. She has so much as said so.

      The pendulum swings from side to side, never stopping in the middle.

  54. “The mural completed last weekend was a peaceful”

    No it wasn’t. Anything the state does is inherently non-peaceful. You seize resources by force via taxation and allocate them as you see fit. Confiscating private property to advance political messaging and propaganda that directly funds Democrat/Biden PACs is reprehensible and the mayor should be impeached for it.

  55. The hate crime was the fucking mural itself.

  56. Someone in Placerville CA put up flyers with the phrase “IT’S OK TO BE WHITE”, which I’m sure most here have seen before.

    Question…tearing down those flyers…can that be seen as a hate crime?

  57. Isn’t there a law against using government property or resources (in this case, the street) for partisan political purposes (in this case, painting BLM on it)?

    1. Not when the stupid City provides you with a “permit” to do so. In municipalities, this is known as an “encroachment permit”.

  58. Think that describing the action of “the state”, the DA being a representative thereof here might rightly be described as”overkill”, or might one note the local of the activity, and conclude Only In California,a conclusion that might not be geographically valid.

  59. This has been a really wonderful post. Many thanks for providing this information.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.